BAPTISMAL REGENERATION vs. COVENANT THEOLOGY

___________________________________________________________

SOME BELIEVE THAT THE DOCTRINE OF

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

IS THE SAME AS THE DOCTRINE OF

COVENANT THEOLOGY

BUT IT IS NOT!

______________________________

To answer your question about the theory of baptismal regeneration, this is a biblically impossible concept in my opinion. True, some of the early church fathers actually held to this teaching; hence, many in the Eastern Orthodox churches, Roman Catholic, and churches of Christ, et al, today teach this false view. Unfortunately, a number of so-called Reformed pastors also seem to strongly lean in this direction.

The application of water in baptism can never wash away sins. Only the blood of Christ can take away sins. It is a dangerous doctrine because it deceives people who may be baptised into believing that they are right with God.

Covenant theology has never held to this view, but has always denied it vigorously. It is absolutely contradictory to the Gospel message.

But true Covenant Theology recognizes that God always deals with His people through covenants. Abraham is described in Romans 4 as "believ(ing) God and it was accounted to him for righteousness." He had this righteousness BEFORE he was circumcised. He was not circumcised in order to gain righteousness. It is belief in God's promises in Christ, therefore, that saves a man, not the man-assisted act of water baptism.

And if you turn to Genesis 17 it says that the promises to Abraham were given to him and his seed. Ultimately this refers to Christ (Galatians 3:16). Returning to Genesis we find that Abraham circumcised not only Isaac, the child of promise, but also Ishmael, the child of the flesh. Why would he do this? It was Isaac who inherited the promises and was included in the covenant line, eventually being fulfilled in Christ. But God recognized the circumcism of Ishmael and he was blessed in a different, non-redemptive way. Circumcism was the sign and seal of the covenant under the Old Covenant and all the children of Israel were required to be given this sign.

It is important to keep in mind that the whole Old Covenant structure that God imposed upon His people was a covenant that had two aspects: Blessings for obedience, cursings for disobedience. It was not merely blessings but cursings also.

Baptism means something different for Baptists compared to what it means for Presbyterians. To the former, one must not be baptised until the person makes a profession of faith in Christ. To the Presbyterian, baptism is to follow the pattern that God gave to Abraham in circumcism. All covenant children (children of at least one believing parent) must be baptized because they are already in the covenant and should have the covenant sign and seal applied to them as an outward indication of their relationship to God. This relationship is NOT salvation; rather it is recognition that they are covenant children and, with believing parents, reaalize that God has placed them in a special position in the covenant family where they will be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. When the time comes that they, too, embrace Christ as Savior, they become saved but not before that. And even unbelieving children are taught that they have a responsibility to believe the Gospel and be saved. If they should disregard this covenant relationship and become rebellious to parents and want no part of the Christian faith, they become covenant breakers and God's curse is upon them. When they are babies, neither the parents nor anyone else can know whether this child is one of God's elect or not. Only as covenant children look to God and see Him working in their hearts through faith in Christ can they have reasonable certainty that they are indeed one of God's own children.

It is commonly taught that covenant children, before they come to faith in Christ, are NOT allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper. However, I personally disagree on this point. Since children of believers are already in the covenant and have received the sacrament of baptism, they should also be granted the privilege of taking communion. This should not be denied them, but it usually is in most Reformed churches.

One problem with that practice is that if some of these covenant children are brought before the church session for rebellion against parents or other ungodly practices, they may be disciplined by the session. But what does discipline normally consist of? With adults it is the withholding of the communion elements until full restoration takes place. But these kids were never allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper in the first place, so they think "no big deal. I was never a part of the covenant family anyway."

So I think many Reformed churches are in error by not allowing the Lord's Supper to infants and small children. The reason they give is found in I Cor. 11 where it says "let a man examine himself..." But the disorderly conduct in Corinth did not involve children but rather adults who could examine their own hearts -- infants can not do that. Surely this is not sufficient reason to deny them the elements. So the whole distinction between communicate members and non-communicate members in Presbyterian and Reformed churches is in error in my opinion. Children of believers, if they are entitled to baptism, which they certainly are, should also be entitled to receive communion along with their parents. These children instinctively know that they are part of God's covenant family and often feel hurt and denied when the elders pass the bread and the cup past them. These covenant kids are actually being informally excommunicated right in their own church, even though many of them already love the Lord and have been taught God's love for them at the knee of their parents from birth.

So there is a world of difference between baptismal regeneration (a false teaching) and covenant theology (a biblical teaching). Reformed theology has always taught that people are saved by faith in Christ alone and His work on the cross alone. This presupposes regeneration where God has already given them a new heart which enables them to believe the Gospel, repent of their sins, and seek with the Holy Spirit's help to live a godly and holy life.

Walt Hibbard of The PRETERIST VIEWPOINT

www.preteristviewpoint.com

August 2005

_____________________________________ B.E.Kimball - Ed Stevens:

[FROM BRIAN] What would you say if someone asked if an individual has to be baptized in the water in order to be saved? That the water and the act of baptism is a part of the process of salvation?

[FROM ED] Absolutely NOT (spelled "N-O-T")! Go and study all the great Reformed books on the subject of baptism where they explain the "covenantal sign" function of baptism. Baptism is merely a "SIGN" (i.e., outward sign) of a covenant (i.e., "inner grace" or regeneration by God). It is like a wedding ring, which is a visible "sign" or symbol of a covenant relationship. Is the wedding ring essential before there can be a covenant, or can you have a covenant without the outward sign of it? In other words, can two people be married even though neither of them wear a wedding ring? Of course, they can! The wedding ring is not an essential for a covenant. It is merely a sign or symbol of a covenant. It is an outward, visible testimony to the existence of a covenant. Jesus says that if we don't "confess Him before men, neither will He confess us before His Father." Baptism is only one way of "confessing" (or testifying) our faith in Christ before men. Jesus is more interested in our daily lives being a constant "testimony" before men of our faith (covenant relationship) in Christ. Those who only have the baptism testimony and no other evidence of a regenerated covenant relationship are probably not regenerated. The covenant sign means nothing and accomplishes nothing and has no value as a "covenant sign" if there is no real covenant relationship there. And that covenant MUST come first, before the sign is applied. The wedding ring is put on AFTER the covenant is made, not BEFOREHAND. Same way for baptism. The cleansing/regeneration of the heart and the making of a covenant comes first, then the baptism is done afterwards as a visible symbol and confession of that covenant cleansing and regeneration. That is what chapter 28, article 5 of the WCF (on Baptism) is talking about. The elect can be regenerated and saved without ever being baptized, and baptism of a person is no guarantee that he is regenerated. Baptism is not essential to regeneration, nor is regeneration guaranteed by baptism. It is merely an outward testimony of one's faith and professed covenant relationship. Whether there really is regeneration and a covenant relationship in that person's heart is another matter altogether. Baptism has no value in establishing or guaranteeing regeneration.